Thursday, 30 July 2009

The two letters in question are those from Andy Burnham and Jon Newman. From both, two extracts:

Andy Burnham:

"All ministers take care to base any public statements on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer...."

Jon Newman, quoting Sir Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer:

"The scientific advice on face masks is that they are of very little value. They get moist, which enhances the virus. And because the virus is so small it can go through the pores. They also give a false sense of security."

Then from the BBC we get a report of a public statement, in the Commons, from Andy Burnham that 226m face masks have been ordered!

If you check the BBC video, there it is from Burnham in the first 30 seconds.

And just to double-check, the quote from fatty Liam was, indeed, widely reported in April, such as here.

Professor Donaldson agreed that face masks for the public were of very little value, saying that scientific evidence had showed this to be the case: "They get moist and that enhances the risk of the virus transmitting. The virus is so small it can go through the pores in the mask and it gives a false sense of security."

Now, we know that Liam Donaldson's version of scientific evidence is a lot different to ours. He believes pharmaceutical industry bullshit, for example - like cunts tend to do. But forget that for a minute, as someone must be talking bollocks here, there is simply no other conclusion to be made.

If Andy Burnham won't make a decision without consulting clinically-obese Liam, and Liam says that face masks are shit ... why is the DoH ordering 226 million of them?

Or, could it be that Liam's confident scientific evidence has been shown to be donkey cock and he has changed his mind? In which case, Donaldson is shown up as someone who should have no more business in dictating public health than a verge-strimmer.

Of course, if Liam's pronouncement is correct (and it probably is, which would make a fucking change), it must obviously prove that Burnham is making it up as he goes along and/or wasting money for no discernible benefit.

Whichever way you cut it, these people are entrusted with guarding your health.

The Spectator's Alex Massie has highlighted an ominous article in the New York Times.

Does Hogwarts have a drinking problem? As Harry Potter fans crowd movie theaters to catch the latest installment in the blockbuster series, parents may be surprised by the starring role given to alcohol. In scene after scene, the young wizards and their adult professors are seen sipping, gulping and pouring various forms of alcohol to calm their nerves, fortify their courage or comfort their sorrows...recreated on the big screen, the images of teenage drinking are jarring. Previous Harry Potter movies have shown drinking, but this one takes it to a new level.

In one scene, Harry, Ron and Hermione order butterbeers at the pub, and Hermione ends up with a frothy mustache. While it’s never been entirely clear whether butterbeer is alcoholic, it seems to have an effect on the normally uptight Hermione, who acts tipsy walking home as she throws her arms around the boys.

As the mother of a 10-year-old Harry Potter fan, I was taken aback by the reaction of the young people in the theater. They snickered at Hermione’s goofy grin and, later, guffawed when an inebriated Hagrid passed out. While I don’t think my daughter fully understood what was going on, I wondered how other parents, educators and addiction experts would react...

Of course, there was much righteous brow-furrowing about it, especially from the doctor who has, quite coincidentally, written a paper about the devilish Harry Potter alcohol problem before. Fancy that.

It's all following the template, natch. Where anti-tobacco leads, anti-alcohol follows at a discreet distance.

Mildly concerned articles like this soon lead to more proscriptive pieces and the 'issue' gains momentum amongst the righteous. Finally, there will be calls for alcohol displayed on screen to be taken into account during classification. It's in the miserablists' guidebook. Rather like this.

Films featuring characters who smoke could soon be handed an automatic 18 rating while showing in Liverpool.

Liverpool Primary Care Trust (PCT) wants young people banned from exposure to smoking actors because of research suggesting they influence children.

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

David Cameron has expressed regret for his foul-mouthed tirade this morning.

It was awfully rum behaviour, what? I know I was on that radio station which plays Lily Allen singing about wet patches and giving head, and I know that people hear the terms I used, on a daily basis, but my saying them is quite wrong.

Of course people are going to be offended by an Old Etonian conversing in the same manner as the rest of the population.

Well, he didn't say that but you get the idea.

Cameron doing the fashionable thing, 'expressing regret' for his comments this morning, appears yet more career politician risk-averse nonsense to me and I wish he hadn't. Now, if he'd said that Twitter was a bag of shit application populated by vacant ferret-fuckers and bollock-scratchers, or that the public were fizzing at politicians and wished to see them gang banged up the brown starfish by a dozen AIDS-ridden Polish labourers, all to Womens Institute radio, one could understand the need for an apology.

But for fuckity-fuck's sake, 'pissed off' and 'twat', especially in the context of the interview, and to the audience concerned, are nothing more than common-or-garden vocabulary. Why the fuss?

Probably to assuage the legions of 'anonymous complainants' just itching to get righteously offended. And the professional politicians created them all, with the daft offence-free society they have installed, instead of telling the anally retentive wankers to go impale themselves on a rusty spike.

What's more, by saying sorry for something which wouldn't have caused even a murmur of disapproval in any group of everyday citizens, Cameron is giving succour to the miserable cock-sockets who search for such things to complain about.

Like the thousands of morally-outraged who were moved to complain to the BBC about Jonathan Ross's (admittedly tasteless) radio show when only 2 of those who listened felt aggrieved, or the 23 charmless groups who went to the trouble of registering a complaint with Wookey Hole after reading the 'fun' story about their recruitment ad for a witch (bad luck with that by the way, Debs).

Don't apologise to these cunts, David, it only boosts their ego and encourages them to be 'offended' by more and more irrelevant nonsense. Instead, they should be ignored and marginalised from decent society, ridiculed by TV comedians, condemned by the tabloids as miserable anti-social gits. As was dished out to Mary "I watched it three times and was offended more each time" Whitehouse in the 70s.

As for the MSM. Stop making such a big fuss. One minute you're flagellating an MP for being out of touch as he has a moat, the next you're making headlines about how a posh guy says things that we tend to do. You can't have it both ways.

The real story, that of what Cameron thinks about Tory election chances and how he feels about being Prime Minister, was relegated to a few paras further down which almost no-one will see.

To add balance, Harriet Harfuckwit was equally over-sensitive in apologising to Martin Sheen for a bit of light-hearted radio banter in March.

Oh, and if anyone has been offended by my language in this article? Fuck you. I hope that helps.

I'd also wager that the glut of gashes in the tarmac is something to do with a lax salting of the roads during cold weather. And you want to give them more money to reward them for poor allocation of resources?

Don't encourage them, Anthony, for chrissakes. Oxford will only send some highly-paid policy officer to a seminar to instruct other local authorities on how best to hold out the begging bowl when they have wasted their funds on unnecessary nonsense.

** It's odd that councils never run out of money for tobacco control advisers, is it not?

“We specialize in creating diamonds from locks of hair. Our plan is to give people an opportunity to own a diamond made from Michael Jackson’s DNA,” said Dean VandenBiesen founder of LifeGem. “We are currently evaluating Jackson's hair sample to determine how many diamonds can be created. This will be a limited collection and we anticipate great interest.”

Monday, 27 July 2009

Student fees. Indefensible. I spoke against it at conference in 2003 before it came in. We were denied a vote on it. Denied by the party managers. Denied because once again the party was against it and they didn't want to have to listen. There is a real theme emerging here.

Damn right there is, Tim, you stick it to 'em, mate.

The lengths the party hierarchy went to, in order to prevent a debate on this issue as a separate topic were appalling. And pointless, as at the same conference there was a vote on the foundation hospital programme calling on the government to stop it. Despite it being passed by conference it lead to not one amendment, not one days delay and no policy change whatsoever. If the party can be ignored so blatantly and so often, we may as well have had the debate anyway.

He is totally correct, of course. New Labour's modus operandi is, and always has been, to pointedly refuse to even consider dissenting opinion on any initiative upon which they have arrogantly pronounced. As the bug-eyed burgher rightly highlights, democratic process is certainly no obstacle to them.

If Labour believe the end justifies the means, any tactics are acceptable. And those who disagree are generally dismissed as deluded, reactionary, childish, irrelevant, or any combination of the aforementioned. They will simply ignore electoral process entirely if necessary, just as they did in denying that referendum on the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty which they promised in 2005, and on which the public voted.

He really gets it, that Councillor Tim.

Err ... except that he doesn't.

The article in question was in relation to what Tim (who represents an electorate who would vote for Wayne Slob if he wore a red tie) believes to be the five issues which have most harmed Labour. No mention of the Lisbon Treaty for some strange reason, even in the face of unprecedented electoral gains by UKIP since 2005, but he does make some valid observations on civil liberties and the Iraq war.

By inviting alternative suggestions, though, he then has a problem. You see, some people raise the smoking ban, and Tim really likes it. Despite the fact that a blanket ban wasn't in the Labour 2005 manifesto, and that Labour have spun, manipulated statistics, ignored dissenting voices, subverted public consultations, and whored themselves to big pharma in their puritan crusade to persuade us that the smokefree world is sweet-smelling and rosy. Timmy's confirmation bias swallowed it all without question so, following in the footsteps of the cabinet he rightly criticises, he does exactly as they would do. On his Twitter feed, he sticks his fingers in his ears, ridicules, condescends, and arrogantly dismisses.

It's an opinion, Tim. You asked for them, your request was granted. It's how politics is supposed to be conducted and you are a politician. Got that?

But the advocate of the party which rails constantly against the unnecessary marginalisation of minorities based on stereotypes, is not averse to slinging a bit of unsubstantiated hatred around in the righteous cause himself when it suits him. Smoker opinions are to be ignored and ridiculed as, typically Labour, he doesn't agree with them.

Ah! This would explain the vitriol, nonsensical argument and preschool spelling.

I liked the anti-netiquette dig at literacy. This from a guy whose desecration of question and exclamation marks earlier is the stuff of vacuous teens ejaculated from a Labour education system.

It's worth pointing out that while tweeting this to his lefty chums, Tim had still not replied to the commenters with an articulate response in disagreement. In fact, he hadn't even published them.

15 hours later, he considered the idea. Labour are rather addicted to moderation power trips, are they not?

Latest blog was a popular read 'under the bridge'. Guess I could publish all the smoke fuelled Troll rants. As unrepresentative as they are.

Apparently, personal opinions, which Tim invited, are unrepresentative. Of what he doesn't explain. The people who post them seem to think that it is representative of their opinion, so he must be talking about their views being unrepresentative of the people at large. Therefore they must be 'trolls' for expressing an opinion which is at odds with his own. After all, Tim is right and everone who doesn't think that Tim is right ... is wrong.

Tim. Do you not think that the reason you view these comments as unrepresentative could be that you are wedded to a party which is fucking hell-bent on suppressing dissent and differing opinion on a motherfucking daily basis. You talk in your own circles, crawl up the 'arris of every lefty MP who believes as you do, and when an alternative point of view is expressed, you disregard to the extent that you don't even bother posting it until you have ingratiated yourself with your own kind.

If you ever do comment, your reply will be to dismiss differing voices as deluded, reactionary, childish, irrelevant, or any combination of the aforementioned. You may even throw in a few fake charity stats into the bargain. You've already started the process.

Now, this might be an eye-opener for you, sunshine, but that's exactly what your top table did to you in 2003.

It's how Labour work. They frown on debate, thrive on arrogance and self-regard, while continually extolling mendacious, dogmatic, and insular thinking.

For a party which was reborn under the Campbell-inspired 'Third Way', it would be interesting to ascertain when that lateral idea was discarded, by the Labour front bench right down to provincial pricks like Tim, in favour of just two choices. Their way, or fuck you.

Small point, but I wonder if Tim really thought seat belt laws were a product of a Wilson government, or if he was praising Thatcher for bringing them in.

Saturday, 25 July 2009

Last night, I and other guests enjoyed copious amounts of alcohol. I awoke this morning not feeling well, with what could be described as flu-like symptoms; headache, nausea, chills, sore eyes etc. From the results of some initial testing, I have unfortunately tested positive for what experts are now calling Wine Flu. This debilitating condition is very serious and it appears this is not an isolated case. Texts are flooding in to me of many others who have the same symptoms.

To anyone who starts to exhibit the aforementioned tell-tale signs, experts are recommending a cup of tea and a bit of a lie down. However, should your condition worsen, you should immediately take some Ibuprofen (seems to be the only drug available that has been proven to help combat this unusual type of flu) and mutter 'never again' at regular intervals. Others are reporting a huge greasy fry-up can help in some cases. Wine Flu does not need to be life threatening, and if treated early can be eradicated within a 24 hour period.

If not, then further application of the same liquid in similar quantities to the original dose has been shown to do the trick.

Friday, 24 July 2009

Off to my company summer 'do' tonight, the general thrust of which is to thank around 50 of our employees for a successful year by allowing them to gorge on fine food and get royally shit-faced at our expense. It's only polite that I join in. Merely for the good of the firm, of course.

In the meantime, this article at Boatang & Demetriou is essential reading.

This is modern Britain in a perfect nutshell. The real transgressors and haters of liberty and fairness are given a blank cheque, while the rest of us are easy meat for the new generation of Orwellian chieftains and rule makers.

Decent, normal, respectable people who care about individualism are derided and chased out of town. They are easy meat. You, and I, are fodder for the jobsworths and the pious - people who love to feel superior and impress power over difference and choice.

It's one of those which makes you happy that you are not alone in despairing at modern Britain, while simultaneously making you weep in exasperation that there doesn't seem to be any political will to return the country to a civilised state.

Thursday, 23 July 2009

Professor Ian Gilmore is a mouthpiece for the government and should probably have his tongue ripped from his lying head before being hanged by his testicles in a tank full of ravenous piranas. The cunt.

Why the vitriol? Well, perhaps it has something to do with press releases such as this.

Responding today to data in Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England, 2008 that suggests the likelihood of a pupil drinking alcohol increases with the number of drinkers per household, Professor Ian Gilmore, President of the Royal College of Physicians said:

“These figures show very clearly that we need to tackle teenage drinking from every possible angle. While it’s absolutely right to focus on issues of price, and illegal sales it is equally vital that parents, teachers and other role models acknowledge that their own behaviour shapes children’s attitudes towards alcohol. In a sense this cuts to the heart of what we mean when we talk about our drinking culture. If we are to encourage healthier attitudes among the young, adults need to think more carefully about the examples we set for our children.”

Welcome to a significant step in promoting the denormalisation of parental alcohol consumption. Porky Liam Donaldson invented the term 'passive drinking' to tack on the back of the anti-tobacco fantasy of passive smoking, which many of the great unthinking still believe, and now one of his minions has a firm grip on placing the concept of the alcohol version in the mind of every Sun reader and gullible fuckwit in the country.

Can you smell the faint whiff of future prohibition with regard to uncorking a Pinot Grigio in front of the kiddies yet?

The ONS study to which Gilmore refers, commissioned by the NHS to back up lardy Liam's assertion that under 15s should never drink even a small glass of wine at Christmas, runs to 219 pages. Considering its remit to prove what the fat cunt asked it to, the ONS produced a precis exactly as ordered, and Gilmore had his thinly-disguised temperance movement commentary at the ready.

It's to tackle that 'epidemic' of teen boozing, you see. Except that there isn't one. And the ONS study confirms it.

It's quite clear that there has been no change, apart from boys drinking less, since 1988, and the current overall trend is decidedly downward. Gilmore mentioned none of that.

There were a few salient points that the document did state though. And if Gilmore actually bothered to read it, for some reason he didn't see fit to include them in his one-sided judgement.

For the first time in this survey series, pupils were asked how many of the people they lived with drank alcohol; this could be parents, siblings or anyone else they lived with.

The first time the question has been asked, and Gilmore's press release only focusses on that one aspect. Hmmm.

The rest of it seems to confirm that responsible attitudes to drinking in kids tends to emanate from parents who are only mildly restrictive.

Pupils whose parents did not mind them drinking, as long as they didn’t drink too much were least likely to have been drunk in the past four weeks (50%of pupils who had drunk alcohol in the last four weeks) or to have tried to become drunk (30%). Compared with this group, pupils whose parents disapproved of their drinking but who had drunk alcohol in the last four weeks were more likely to have been drunk (66%) or to have tried to get drunk (45%).

Proper cunt Gilmore (if he read this far) would have loved to read that parents who didn't give a shit tended to have kids who are right animals, of course.

Those who answered that their parents let them drink as much as they liked were most likely both to have been drunk in the last four weeks (75%) and to have deliberately tried to get drunk in the last four weeks (59%).

Except that there are almost no parents who are actually like that.

Few pupils of any age said that their parents let them drink as much as they liked.

As comprehensively illustrated in this graph which - oh fuck me, no - Gilmore also appears to have missed.

A big, loud, percentage for a very tiny portion of those surveyed. Quite a soundbite, doncha think?

The thrust of this study, and the probable reporting of it, is fully intended to make parents believe that if they drink in front of their kids, their offspring will inevitably turn out to be raging alcoholics.

To tackle a problem which doesn't exist, righteous extremists are again using skewed data to force their will on everyone in society, and their methods are becoming more rancid by the day. Make no mistake, the denormalisation of alcohol is underway and following the same rules as the template laid down by those who don't like the smell of tobacco.

Coming just a few days after the British Beer and Pub Association talked of 52 pub closures per week, this new attack should set some alarm bells ringing. With the BBPA insisting that the smoking ban isn't a problem and that the way forward is to attract families with food, it would kinda put the kibosh on it if parents were scared into thinking that having a beer with their meal was a form of child abuse.

Hey, and BBPA, good luck with that campaign to reduce alcohol duty which Alistair Darling completely fucking ignored in April, you daft cunts. If the government are commissioning surveys to prove that just the sight of your principle product is harming kids, then I wouldn't hold my breath for a bit of respite if I were you. Perhaps you might like to rename yourself the British Cheap Restaurant Association instead.

Just two people saw this survey as a denigration of parents' attitudes in the general non-event of a binge-drinking culture which doesn't actually exist. They would be the cunt Donaldson, and Gilmore, who seems to see whatever his temperance movement paymasters want him to see. For the good of all of us, I hope he goes to Specsavers sometime soon.

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Two articles, same paper, same day. That one problem follows on from the other is fairly obvious, but Ed Balls is buggered if he can see it.

Teachers in England 'poorly trained'

Teachers are England are among the least-qualified in the developed world, according to research.

Not too surprising considering the fact that the pressures placed upon them, for a not too impressive wage, have increased with every target-driven, dogmatic diktat from Labour. As former inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, confirms.

he said teachers were now expected to be more focused on "the challenges of social diversity than the excitement of teaching an academic subject".

"These days student teachers and aspirant headteachers are lobotomised into an unthinking acceptance of the Government's plans," he said. "Who would want to be a member of this non-profession?"

Zackerley. And as the lustre of the profession wanes, and teachers leave as a result, so must the entry criteria be lowered to fill the places required for a pupilship which is increasing.

Just a brief scan of some highlights (or lowlights) of the Puddlecote boy's 2008/9 experience can attest to the priorities Labour have placed in primary schools, for example.

- For Easter, a trip to the town centre, picking up litter to save the enironment.- For Black History Month, an extended study of Nelson Mandela (the Celts and Romans followed 6 months later).- For end of term concert, a song and lecture of how far Africans have to walk to get water.- Walk to school week. Difficult when you live 2 miles away, the parents actually work, and the kid is 8.

Not the sort of thing that trainees dream of teaching, I suspect, and not representative of the recruitment ads for the teaching profession placed on TV, either.

Inspirational teachers, if utilised in imparting real education as opposed to PC bullshit, don't really have to work too hard in other areas. By engaging their charges, the subject matter becomes almost like playtime and knowledge is sucked in by osmosis rather than by process of rote.

Boring the fuck out of them by instructing purely for a regular series of game theory assessment tests, lobbing in the odd bit of lefty conditioning along the way, isn't very appealing to someone who dreamed of expanding knowledge at training school, one would assume.

It is also rather counter-productive to self-imposed discipline within the class, and with the deterrents to unruly kids being diluted to next to nothing by righteous nannies, the whole In Loco Parentis concept comes crashing down too.

As such, something has to be done. And as teachers have their hands tied with regard to discipline, the obvious answer to Labour, who caused the fucking problem in the first place, is to blame someone else.

All parents to sign 'behaviour contracts'

Pupils and their families will be required to agree to the deal - setting out minimum standards of behaviour and attendance - before the start of term. Contracts, known as Home School Agreements, will also establish parents' responsibilities for the first time.

All parents? Surely this should just be the troublemakers? Apparently not.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, said the changes would help stop a single student disrupting the education of his or her classmates.

"If the large majority of parents are doing the right thing but a small minority do not engage you can have one lesson for 30 kids disrupted by one child," he said.

"Every parent will have to, as part of the admissions process, say they take on board the obligations in the Home School Agreement, and every parent will be expected to reaffirm that every year."

The usual Labour trick of collective punishment again. And, as usual, it is the many who are stuffed by the very few who Labour created with their blinkered, ideological defence of stunning ignorance.

Listen, Ed, you myopic fucktard, would it not be a good idea, instead of tying the hands of good teachers from the moment they leave teacher training school, to let them have some kind of autonomy in what they teach, how they teach it, and the discipline they are allowed to administer.

That way, perhaps the good ones wouldn't leave the profession and you wouldn't need to go through the effort of having a parental contract at all.

You'd have to stop being an empty-headed socialist cock first, but if you could just see your way clear to installing a course in personal responsibility, common sense, and the benefits of free-thinking, perhaps you could sit on one of those arse-busting small chairs yourself, be enthralled as the kids would, and see how advantageous it could be in the cause of tackling future anti-social behaviour.

On both sides of the Atlantic, righteous opinion believes that the only way to keep motorists in order is the threat of heavy punishment, it would seem.

So, let's get this straight. Schoolkids must be softly spoken to and 'persuaded' not to break rules rather than be threatened with heavy punishment for transgression. Convicted offenders must be gently rehabilitated as, we are told, harsh sentences don't work ... yet if you are a generally law-abiding type, the only option is to tell you, in no uncertain terms, that you will have your balls cut off if you step out of line.

Look out for the UK syndicated version, no doubt coming to a Corrie advert break near you soon.

Tynan Wierd at The Daily Politics has, for some strange reason, posted a rather alluring recipe for Hot Rhubarb Chutney.

The brand new Puddlecote kitchen may well witness this creative process at some point during the school hols.

But where's the video? Having stumbled on Videojug today, and having wasted a good couple of hours watching recipes delivered in the style of 1970s Open University programmes, mere words just don't cut it anymore.

The number of city centre bars and cafes has increased UK pubs closed at a rate of 52 per week in the first half of the year - a third more than the same period in 2008 - the British Beer & Pub Association said.

Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, the party's two MEPs, will skim off part of their expenses and salaries to fund a party-controlled "community chest", they told the Daily Telegraph.

People in their European constituencies – North-West England and Yorkshire & The Humber – will then be able to apply for the money in order to fund "worthwhile" local projects, including St George's Day celebrations.

Mr Griffin said: "When we've got money left over, we're putting it back into our constituencies. We've pledged to do so, and we will do so. It will be good for people in our area."

A spokesman for the European Parliament said: "That would not be allowed."

Charities are being hijacked and turned into pawns in Labour's class war

And how! Save The Children, Oxfam and Barnardos have all campaigned recently for higher welfare benefits or lower taxes; a Barnardos poll found that 78 per cent of nine and ten-year-olds thought 'the Prime Minister should never break promises'; Christian Aid lobbies strongly against 'trade liberalisation and privatisation' in developing countries.

People who give money to these charities do so in the belief that their donation will go towards the relief of individual suffering. They do not give in order to fund a highly ideological campaign for a particular economic policy or political point of view.

Yet this abuse of 'charity' is said to be in accordance with the law.

Don't forget that our taxes are the sole reason why many of the 'charities' favoured by Labour are allowed to exist at all.

What's more, Labour have relaxed rules on charities to make sure that those they like are given carte blanche ...

The fact is that charity is being hijacked and turned into a branch of politics. For example, last year the Commission relaxed the rules so that charities can now go in for political campaigning.

... while simultaneously stifling the options of those who Labour see as 'undesirable'.

For the truth is that the Charity Commission has been turned into a major weapon in the Government's armoury against independent schools by threatening to force them into actions that would bankrupt them.

Last week, the Commission picked upon two small private prep schools which it said weren't doing enough to 'ensure that people who cannot afford the fees can benefit from what they do'.

This was an act of ideological spite.

Now, who is more wrong here? The BNP who have pledged to return taxpayers' money to the taxpayer, or Labour who not only use taxpayer funds to prop up fake charities of their choosing, but also alter legislation to make sure that only charities with which they agree are allowed to benefit from charitable status?

One is frowned upon for being a spiteful and hate-filled party with a covert agenda to disenfranchise large swathes of the British public on ill-conceived, dogmatic and puerile grounds ... the other is the BNP [2].

Boom, boom.

[1] Yes, comparing the EU with parliament is eggs and cheese, but considering Labour are fully behind the European nightmare (and share the same authoritarian nature), the comparison is valid IMO

[2] Obligatory 'I really detest what the BNP stand for' disclaimer. But for fuck's sake, is it any wonder people vote for them when Labour make it so difficult to distinguish between two parties who both trade on irrational prejudice?

Tuesday, 21 July 2009

A man in Western Australia was engulfed in flames when police officers fired a Taser stun gun at him.

Police say they used the Taser on Ronald Mitchell, 36, when he ran at them carrying a container of petrol and a cigarette lighter.

They said that Mr Mitchell, who lives in a remote Aboriginal community, had been sniffing petrol.

Carrying petrol and a lighter, so they fired a massive spark plug at him. There's clever.

But what the fuck is this?

Mr Mitchell was charged with assault to prevent arrest and possession of a sniffing substance.

Possession of a sniffing substance? Petrol? Is that really a law for the upside-down people?

I've been worried about Australia for some time now. They used to be all 'fuck it, stick another shrimp on the baaarbie' whilst calling us whinging poms and laughing at our anally-retentive nature. It was the country whose PM greeted the 1983 Americas Cup victory on live TV thus.

They have banned smoking, natch, and in Tasmania, that includes cars. They don't want anyone climbing on Ayers Rock, so they've banned it. That's the big orange thing in the middle of the desert at the arse end of the world which has been around for millions of years without problems before. Chinese products are out - banned. No point putting Aussies through that stressful pain of competing for business.

So that's their libertarian credentials well and truly gone. Still, at least they can still drink us under the table though, eh? Not for long, actually.

Kevin Rudd has set aside $53-million to tackle what he says is a binge drinking "epidemic" among young Australians. He wants to launch a fear campaign to eradicate the drinking culture.

Federal Cabinet agreed to the new strategy today, but Mr Rudd is considering going further by changing laws on alcohol advertising and labelling.

"Frankly, scaring the living daylights out of young people about the health impact of binge drinking in terms of brain damage, I don't think it's going to do any harm and it might just do some good."

But you have been good, for decades, at taking the Castlemaine XXXX out of us when it comes to drinking. You were the world leader, yet still maintained a cool exterior. We were in your thrall (and hated ourselves for it) precisely because of such blithe arrogance. Why bin it?

Now they apparently have a law which they can trolley out to throw at someone who is carrying petrol, should they need to. It looks like they have all the bases covered over there.

We've had 3,000 new offences under Labour and we certainly don't need any more. This will only give them ideas.

Time to clear out Earls Court lest the Aussie disease is catching. Hole them up in a sterile leisure centre or something before they persuade some West London mung-muncher to push for a ban on bottled water for the sake of Gaia.

Give the bloody Aussie cricket team masks too, in case we get infected. They used to beat us hollow when they didn't give a shit.

Australian sports minister Kate Ellis has accepted the ultimate humiliation for an Aussie sports fan by agreeing to wear a Team GB shirt at Monday's Paralympic wheelchair basketball match between Britain and Australia after losing an Olympic bet with her British counterpart, Gerry Sutcliffe.

In fact, sod quarantine, just throw them all out, dangly cork hats and all. The risks to our future are too great.

If you've ever wondered why every other advert on the radio emenates from some government department telling you how they think you should live your life. If it has ever struck you that you are seeing more and more sick scaremongering TV ads designed to terrify motorists, this is why.

Phil Taylor has crunched the numbers. 2009 figures show that Labour frittered away £540m on advertising, up nearly a half on the previous year, a spend which is five times that of 1997 when Labour first got their grubby mitts on the purse strings.

Nannying, hectoring and blind ideological righteousness have never been more costly.

Monday, 20 July 2009

If you have ever run a business, or even been a line manager in one, or hell - just worked in one, you will be well aware of the stifling nature of health and safety laws (the root of almost all of which can be traced back to the EU, by the way).

Especially where it relates to chiiildren. Long gone are the days where children were to be seen and not heard. Nowadays they must be monitored throughout their lives, evaluated at ever-decreasing intervals, and their wellbeing protected by measures well beyond those which most of us would consider sane.

My generation weren't overweight as we played footie with a tennis ball at every break, yet round objects are now considered dangerous and have been banned at just about every school in the country. Our sports days went ahead if it was blistering sunshine (sunburn risk) or the ground was sodden (risk of slipping), and we were given cups and medals, not thumbs up stickers for taking part in case we got upset about not winning - our parents were even allowed to come and watch. If we hurt ourselves, the school secretary (or matron, if you were posh) gave you a plaster - those things that cannot now be applied since kids began emerging from the womb fabricated from fine breakable crystal.

Kids are so protected now that I feel like I have been cheated. When I was small, the world was for grown-ups and I couldn't wait to be one. Now I am, the world isn't the oyster of adults anymore. a triumverate of health and safety regulations, lucrative businesses vested interest charities, and maternal lefty numbskulls have changed the bloody rules. Kids are the new boss; the world now revolves around them.

I'll digress at this point, if I may, for a spot of anecdotal reminiscing. It's OK, it is relevant. Last year, I was driving through a small village when a kid, I dunno, about 13 years old, crossed the road in front of me. Far enough in front for me to see him well in advance and to be able to stop accordingly should he not have crossed by the time I got there. But rather than hurry along, he ambled at a purposely slow pace, so much so that I was eventually forced to come to a gentle halt. Rather astounded at his arrogance, I just stared in incredulity as he waddled toward the pavement. Whereby, when he was almost at the kerb, without even the courtesy of glancing in my direction, he gave me the finger.

First instinct is obviously that I should have just mown the fucker down. But then there's a house of pain in store if you do that. Other options? Well, I could have got out and walloped the little cunt, but then I am identifiable by my number plate and that is an entry on the child abuse register or some such. Wind down the window and tell him in no uncertain terms precisely what I think of him? I'm sure there would have been an anonymous complainant around to tell the tale.

We had the Green Cross Code Man telling us that roads were to be respected, the new breed have adverts telling them that it's not their fault, it's the driver's.

Kids are now untouchable, and you know what, they fucking know it. It's precisely because they are devious by their very nature. They are testing the water at every opportunity to see what they can get away with. It's the one part of childhood that hasn't changed one iota. We did it, so do all kids and they will continue to do so for millenia to come. The difference is that we would see how high a wall we could jump off without breaking our legs, today's youngsters aren't allowed near the wall. We would have competitions as to who could slide furthest on the ice in winter, kids today won't see the ice as it will have been salted well before they get to school, or else they will be sent back home for health and safety reasons. We would push our teacher's patience to just the limit of having the wooden blackboard rubber thrown at our heads. That practice is long gone, the teacher is hamstrung and can't even touch the pupils students, so kids now just push the teacher until he has a breakdown and tries to kill them with a heavy object.

Most crucially, we would be told that something was inadvisable to do, but some would try it anyway, and if we were hurt, we'd have learned something that day.

14 year old Aiden Williams learned just such a lesson, according to this report today.

A boy of 14 collapsed after chewing 45 sticks of nicotine gum - equivalent to 180 Marlboro Light cigarettes - in just 25 minutes. Aiden Williams overdosed on the Nicorette gum, designed to help smokers quit the habit, after it was handed out by counsellors at his school.

It's hard to see anyone coming out smelling of roses in this one, but strangely enough, I can't see that the kid can be blamed fully as many of the commenters tend to veer towards.

He claims that he was given them by someone else. That may or may not be true but it is fairly irrelevant. Apparently, those dishing out what is, let's face it, a drug, to kids at the school, claim that they warned the kids about over-indulgence. In which case, they sure as shit don't understand kids' propensity to push boundaries. If he did get hold of them via another kid, then how was he to know?

The only way you can blame the kid is by accepting that he had been given them by an adult and should have followed their every word. But then, considering kids are so cosseted and bubble-wrapped, why should he even have contemplated something dangerous being placed in his possession?

His schooling will have been so mired in health and safety that he has never experienced true risk. For him, everything is as safe as houses. From the springy rubber under the climbing frame to the break time watching videos because it's spitting outside.

Health and safety, from its noble inception to reduce deaths in heavy manufacturing in the 70s, has mutated into an overbearing religion where children can honestly believe that nothing dangerous will be placed in their way. It's the adults who will carry the can in that unlikely event.

So where was health and safety in this instance? Nanny, of course, is unrepentant, as one would expect.

'Aiden's friend who was originally given the gum would have been told very clearly how often to use it by the worker who gave it to him. We always make sure clients understand not to give out their gum to anyone else. We will investigate the incident and will continue to ensure that young people know about the dangers of giving the gum to others as well as the correct dosage.'

No, you are missing the point, dickhead. Where was the risk assessment? It's a given these days that such things are taken into consideration. Anyone serious about assessing risk would take into account that giving out hundreds of packets of a potentially dangerous drug to kids, especially when not notifying the parents beforehand, is a bloody stupid thing to do.

Or does health and safety take a back seat where pharmaceutical profits are concerned?

One of the little Puddlecotes (the boy) fell over a couple of months ago and was treated to the 'I can't give you a plaster' routine. He did tell me, though, that he was given what his school sec called 'a magic sweet'. You won't be surprised to learn that, on further investigation, this turned out to be a painkiller. This came two days after he had been forcibly made to bin a boiled sweet, the last of the ones he had happily enjoyed on the way back from a long journey to York, which I had put in his lunchbox. He was roundly and publicly berated for it.

The sweet I gave him was obviously not 'magic' enough.

The righteous are so into their crusade against smoking that health and safety, in this instance, has either been discarded in favour of the healthist cause, or has been circumvented by the righteous in their thrall of pharmaceutical interests.

The terms of health and safety legislation state that if harm is caused to someone where risk has not been properly addressed, there is a case for a prosecution. Is it not blatantly clear that, under the circumstances, someone should be called to account here?

Do you reckon someone will be? I sincerely doubt it.

Just as the righteous changed the rules between my being a kid and an adult, so do they change the rules latterly when it suits them. When pushing pharma products to kids, bludgeoning health and safety laws fall strangely silent.

Sunday, 19 July 2009

Just say, for example, that you are an employer in the transport industry. And let's presume, just for discussion, that one of your regional managers has recently taken on a driver who has been doing an acceptable job for the past month.

The employee has all the relevant documents, of which you have, of course, taken copies, but on closer inspection you notice that their name is spelled very slightly differently on their driving licence as opposed to their passport.

You call the employee and ask them which is the correct spelling but they stammer that they don't know.

That's when you realise that they can't read. At all. Not even their own name.

In this entirely fictional, and in no way real (at all, honest) situation, personally I would be wondering how they passed the DVLA theory test in the first place if the paper would obviously appear to them about as understandable as a random sprinkling of iron filings on a white background.

On further investigation, you find out that, despite the inherent need for a driver to understand road signs etc, one doesn't actually have to be able to read the English language to pass the test.

We are committed to equal opportunities for all. We provide a number of facilities for candidates with special needs.

Theory testPlease let us know about the following.

If you are dyslexic or have reading difficulties and need:

an audio version of the test in English; orextra time to take the multiple-choice part of the test.

If you do not read or understand English and need:

an audio version of the test in one of 20 languages, or you want to take your test in your first language;

This would assuage your concern that someone else had taken the test in place of your employee, although you would be curious as to how they passed the vision part of their practical exam, not understanding the alphabet and all that.

Perhaps you would now be reassured that your responsibility as an employer has been satisfied by your making sure their documents were in order. However, you might still be mildly worried as to the potential consequences to you, personally, should your driver cause a fatal accident which could be attributed to their lack of understanding of a written road sign.

The Act introduces a new offence for prosecuting companies and other organisations for gross failures in the management of health and safety with fatal consequences.

Can you just shift the blame onto the DVLA for passing the driver fit to get behind the wheel? Are you, as an employer, required to provide training (reading lessons) under health and safety law? Or would you just think, "sod this for a game of marbles, I can't take the risk", and let them go?

It may be the safest option. But what if your driver takes umbrage, considers that their possession of a driving licence is enough, and sues for unfair dismissal.

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) prohibits discrimination against disabled people in employment.

Employers must not discriminate against a disabled person in

the recruitment and retention of employees,promotion and transfers,training and development,the dismissal process

Severe dyslexia is covered under the law.

Dyslexia does not always affect a person's ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

Considering that, at an employment tribunal, the onus is on the employer to prove their innocence, a claim of discrimination on the grounds of severe dyslexia would likely be accepted by the tribunal service and result in your having to defend yourself with all the entailing cost and disruption to your business.

Pick the bones out of that, then

Well, it could happen. Who'd be an employer in our health and safety, diversity, and equality centric world, eh?

The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.

It was widely reported at the time that there were certain 'touchy' subjects for BBC staff, apparently.

The report noted that the BBC had "come late" to several important stories in recent years, including Euroscepticism and immigration , which as it happens, were "off limits" in terms of a liberal-minded comfort zone".

So, Comrade Beeb's pride in its impartiality extends to a massive two years. Whoopee-effing-doo.

Friday, 17 July 2009

My definition of 'ballpark' must be somewhat different from that of Chief Medical Scaremonger, Liam Donaldson.

On Thursday Prof Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, told the NHS to plan for the possibility of up to 65,000 deaths from the disease this winter – although he said as few as 19,000 could occur.

That appears to be ballparkish to me.

He said: “We haven’t had enough cases to even give ballpark figures of estimates.”

Why give 'ballpark' figures to the press then, gobshite? Could it be that you're still in search of that self-aggrandising global catastrophe which your ego has been craving for years?

If we violently 'park' a size 12 steel toecap in his 'balls', dya reckon he might fuck off?

Despite promising to cut the use of spin in politics, the Prime Minister now has 25 special advisers on the public payroll at No 10, his office said last night. The last time the figures were disclosed last summer, the figure was 23.

How are the spin doctors going to spin the story that there are now more spin doctors?

Thursday, 16 July 2009

One of the best bloggers out there is Costigan Quist at the Himmelgarten Cafe. He was long overdue for being added to my blogroll, but then he went and posted this!

Total Politics is running its best blog of 2009 poll and, shallow person that I am, I'll measure my success not from the wisdom I impart or the good that I do, but instead on how well I rank on a series of fairly random polls, competitions and link counts.

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and ranks them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.3. You MUST include ten blogs. If you include fewer than ten your vote will not count.4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com5. Only vote once.6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents are eligible or based on UK politics are eligible.7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2009. Any votes received after that date will not count.

I find this quite shameless.

There is no way in a million years that I would ever consider pointing out such a poll. Much less highlight full instructions on how to register your vote.

Irresponsible drinking poses major health risks for individuals and demands effective action from government. An SNP government will do more to address public concerns about licensing laws and the advertising, availability and affordability of alcohol.

SNP justice policy will ensure a tough clampdown on irresponsible drinks promotions and underage drinking, including action to stop the deep discounting of alcohol in shops and supermarkets.

This may seem a strange concept to you, Salmond, but if I understand basic rules of economics correctly, attacking the affordability of alcohol, at which your lot have excelled spectacularly, would tend to result in less people buying it.

If less people buy it, profitability reduces and companies are forced to make cuts in their overhead. One of the major overheads any company faces is staff costs.

Your administration has spent a vast amount of time and money trying to stop people buying alcohol, then when a company which sells alcohol announces it is having to cut costs, you cry foul?

Good grief man. Either stop juggling the health lobby's testicles on your chin or accept the inevitable. You can't have it both ways.

There is no intention at this time to extend the smokefree law to any outdoor places. To make any non-enclosed place smokefree would require new regulations to be made; that would usually happen only after a process of public consultation.

Really Darzi? Are you sure? Cos the Corrupt Borough of Tower Hamlets* has done just that, apparently.

A PARK in the East End is to become the first outdoor public place in Britain to be made smoke-free.

Parts of Mile End Park in Tower Hamlets will be off limits to smokers from Monday 20 July, with warning signs appearing around the park this week.

Tower Hamlets council will therefore be the first local authority in the UK to extend the smoking ban to open public places**.

All about health, they always said. So, considering there isn't a shred of evidence of harm from secondary smoking outdoors (nor will there ever be), what is the reasoning behind this?

The Mile End Park ban will apply to the children’s area, and is aimed at preventing children from taking up the habit, as well as protecting them from the effects of "passive" smoking.

Beg pardon? Are we talking about the same Mile End Park which extends over the Mile End Road?

And these righteous cocks are worried about a few wisps of smoke? Good grief with frigging bells and whistles on.

This is the kind of hysterical over-reaction that Darzi and his ilk have helped to foster in the feeble minds of empire-builders and bigoted rubber band flickers the length and breadth of the country.

Presumably, the 'preventing children from taking up the habit' bit is that kids seeing people smoking will make them want to do so as well. An insignificant concern at the time of implementing the smoking ban which necessitated hundreds of thousands of smokers being thrust into the view of kiddywinks nationwide, but now vitally important, it would seem. Nothing like a consistent line of argument, is there?

Of course, what the Corrupt Borough of Tower Hamlets failed to mention in their triumphant piss release is that the measure is entirely unenforceable in law. It is therefore an oxymoron, a voluntary ban. On that score, Lord Darzi was correct.

Having travelled through Tower Hamlets just last month (it's a toilet, sorry), one would have thought they would have more to tackle than something so irrelevant, pointless and arrogant as this. But then, while the money is being chucked their way by Darzi's righteous, socialist cock-munching pals, for such schemes, they're going to spend it, aren't they?

* Readers of Private Eye will be well aware of how council leader Lutfur Rahman is turning Tower Hamlets into an exclusively Bangladeshi Borough, and other abuses.

** Not strictly true. A Lib Dem London Borough have already been as stupid.

Tuesday, 14 July 2009

One must wonder at the paucity of expertise within the Labour party when a self-confessed luddite, such as Lord Alan West, is called upon to defend the highly-technological, but fatally-wounded, ID card scheme (cost £4.945bn according to Lord Al).

Last night, opposition Lords kinda tore the poor sod a new arsehole. Not difficult considering the subject matter is now holed below the water line. Lord Roberts took another well-aimed pot-shot anyway, though, for good measure.

Lord Roberts (Liberal Democrat): We know that until about 10 months ago — I am waiting for the Government's updated figures — 216,000 people had gone through the personal passport interview procedure. Not a single one was refused a passport.

Lord West (Labour): The whole purpose of the interview for a first-time passport is to deter bogus or multiple applications for passports. The fact that few bogus applications have been picked up does not necessarily mean that the system is not working; it means that people are wary when they are making those applications.

So Al, what you are saying is that to avoid being identified as bogus, those who would normally attempt to gain a bogus passport just didn't apply.

Surely the same would apply to every perceived benefit applied to ID cards by Labour?

Would it be useful for counter-terrorism, Al?

Lord West: ... when I was asked about this in my first week, I said that its prime role was not as a counterterrorist measure but that it would stop people having lots of different identities. We know very well that al-Qaeda, for example, has at least 30 identities for their people. They will not be able to do this when biometrics are attached.

If it is voluntary, Al, they won't need to. They merely need to make sure they carry on making bombs instead of applying.

What about crime, tax avoidance, that sort of thing?

Lord West: ... information from an individual's entry on the national identity register can be provided to a limited number of government departments for defined functions, and to specify who can receive information on behalf of the prescribed individuals in the security and intelligence services, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the police and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

So gangsters, criminals, and tax evaders will avoid picking up a form from the post office. Anyone else silly enough to apply will have their biometric details available to those nice people at the cop shop or the revenue. Nice one.

We can use them for travel though, Al insists.

Lord West: The regulations make provision for a national identity card that will be issued to British citizens and British subjects with a right of abode. As this card will include the holder's nationality, it will be valid as a travel document within Europe.

Rather like a ... err ... passport then, Al. Yes?

Al seems to really like them, though. He reckons they are quite natty.

I will have no difficulty in having one. It will be jolly useful and I look forward to having it in my wallet

Mind you do keep it in your wallet though, me hearty. We wouldn't want a repeat of that unfortunate data-losing incident, now would we?

It emerged at the court martial that he removed the documents from the MoD without permission, carried them in his coat pocket when they should have been in a security briefcase and failed to tell the MoD immediately of their loss.

Pleading guilty to negligence and charges of breaching security, he told the court martial that he had taken the documents home to Portsmouth to work on them. He lost them while walking with a friend in Sonning, near Reading.

According to the court’s ruling, the musicians – Ian Gillan, Ian Paice and Roger Glover – should have obtained a license from the all-Russian NGO, “Russian Authors’ Society” for the public performance of any of their songs. The organization represents the rights of foreign performers in Russia – even without these performers giving the NGO permission to represent them.

For every “unlicensed” song, the court imposed a penalty of 30,000 roubles (about 1,000 dollars) on the organizers of the concert for payment to the “Russian Authors’ Society” which, in its turn, is supposed to make payments to the authors – Gillan, Paice and Glover.

At least Deep Purple had their fine (to themselves, minus an admin fee, natch) forced upon them. Here's a different style of self-abuse from the US.

Wells Fargo Bank Sues Itself

In this particular case, Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium, according to Sarasota, Fla., attorney Dan McKillop, who represents the condo owner.

As holder of the first, Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is itself.

"The primary reason is to clear title and ownership interest in a property to prepare it for sale," Waetke said in an email exchange. "So it really is not Wells Fargo vs. Wells Fargo."

Once past the Customer Service Guarantors I purchased my alloted 2.8 units of alcohol ( to be consumed in NOT less than two hours) and rang the bell to enter the 'Alcohol Abuse Closet' which is where you go in case any Teetotal Non-smoking Vegans ( " Preferred Patrons " ) are offended by our behaviour.

Monday, 13 July 2009

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation" - Mein Kampf

One can never accuse the righteous of contravening the Gorgon's principle of trans-pair-ency, because it is always painfully obvious what they are going to do next. The secret is to just think of the most extreme nonsense you can imagine on any subject, see how far along that path they have thus far travelled, then plot the next logical step. That is where they will be found, management-speaking and gleefully cascading public money down the drain for little or no benefit to society as a whole.

And, sure as eggs is eggs, they will be using the chiiildren as a shield for whichever illiberal initiative they intend to submit next to government ... using government funds ... provided by taxpayers who have no say in objecting to it being spent in this way.

Deborah Arnott, of fake charity ASH, during a BBC piece talking about banning smoking in cars containing children, let slip that this was just a first step towards dictating what you do in your own carwhoever is in it.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said the charity was in favour of a ban on smoking in cars.

The risks were not just to children but to adults suffering from conditions like heart disease, she said

It's the way they work, you see. Use the chiiildren to denormalise an activity, then once the precedent is set and another tiny part of your freedom has been extinguished, push for the larger part.

So, while they are nagging the compliant knob-jockeys in parliament about that one, they have been feverishly planning the next step. Your home.

Here in April came news of a consultation amongst those who wish to ban smoking in private homes, on ... err ... how to go about banning smoking in private homes.

They were struggling with the sticky problem of getting round the fact that private homes are exactly that - private - and have absolutely naff all to do with interfering bansturbating fucktards on a fat state-funded salary.

On the one hand the home is a private space and there is some resistance found in the ethical debates inherent in public health literature to the blurring of the public/private boundary for smoke-free public health interventions. This is often articulated by libertarian arguments advocating the rights of smokers in their own home and opposing perceived encroachment of the State into private space.

They really wanted to go for a policy of arguing for a total ban, but realised that it's too early for that right now.

Approaches to developing smoke-free homes - incremental or total ban

All panel participants agreed that the ultimate goal was smoke-free homes. However there was considerable discussion about the most feasible and effective way of achieving this.

So, for now, the agreement is to keep the powder dry and just chip away until such time as they have brainwashed our dull-witted MPs enough to move to the end game.

Some, including several of our panel members, have argued that a staged approach may be more realistic and sustainable in ultimately protecting children, whilst still maintaining the goal of smokefree homes.

Scroll on a couple of months, and we begin to see the resultant green shoots of righteous fuckwittery from extreme north to extreme south. Exactly as one would expect. Trans-fucking-pair-ent as perspex.

The PCT, in partnership with the Stop Smoking Service, is working closely with schools, colleges, children’s centres and local communities to raise awareness of the dangers of second hand smoke and the benefits of working towards smokefree homes

All voluntary. For now. But the righteous are past masters at dismissing voluntary arrangements as ineffective in their pursuit of their 'ultimate goal' (until the next 'ultimate goal' is targeted).

Doctors' leaders says Britain's voluntary route, where bars and restaurants are encouraged to introduce no-smoking policies, is simply not enough.

And we all know what happened next, I presume?

Whether one agrees with a home being smoke free or not, this is the righteous sticking their size 12 jackboot exactly where it should not be entertained. Inside your front door. And as you surely must have noticed by now, no amount of appeasement works with these tax-spongers. Interfering is in their nature (well, their wallets, actually), and once they have cracked open the portal of your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, they will next want it to be broken down with the sledgehammer of legislation.

I would still bet good money that Tom Harris, at some point, will be made to come good on the promise he made in October.

So let me make this clear: the government will not, under any circumstances, legislate to stop people smoking in private. It would be a crazy move and, believe it or not, ministers are not crazy people – they’re politicians and they recognise political realities.

And if they did attempt to legislate in this direction, I would risk the wrath of those who don’t believe Scottish MPs should vote on English matters by voting against it.

But as I say, I won’t need to, because it’s not going to happen.

When the division bell rings for the Smoke Free Homes Bill, I for one will be watching closely.